So you cannot demonstrate why your position is the best approach. Got it.

How is calling someone delusional and a "Paul Tard" demonstrating why your position is the best approach? Because that's all you've really done besides parrot the pro-war propaganda that precedes every war.

Quote:

Oh, and by the way...saying that your position is fantasy is not an insult. Saying "Ron Paul and the Paul Tards" when referencing Paul's foreign policy is not calling you names.

"Paul Tards" is not a derogatory insult directed at anyone who supports Ron Paul? What is it then? A compliment?

You know, on this issue I really must. Why? Because we're not simply disagreeing about an issue. It's not like I'm arguing for military action in Iran while you argue against. It not just that an argument like that which happens to get heated. No, it's that you are espousing a view of the world that has been proven throughout history to result in disaster if implemented as policy.

Anyone with any understanding of history--of how the world works--knows that your approach (the Paul approach) is dangerous. The examples are numerous. Neville Chamberlin decided to leave Germany alone and agree to positive relations. The result? The Blitz. We decided to leave Japan alone despite growing evidence of its hostility. The result ? Pearl Harbor and entry into WWII. History is replete with such examples of what happens when strong nations withdraw and allow tyrants to have their way. It is further replete with examples of making the mistake of thinking our adversaries always share our values, as if somehow if we treat them differently, they will forget their ways and learn to embrace us. Your approach will do nothing but embolden Iran and ultimately put Israel and the United States at greater risk.

Think about it: You are actually saying that we should simply "leave them alone" and hope for the best. I'm sorry, but no. We can disagree about what to do and how to do it. But when you fundamentally refuse to understand and acknowledge how the world works, I'm going to call you out on it. Not only that, but when I see a group of people blindly and naively embrace these views, I'm going to label them what they are: Paul Tards. You should hear yourselves. You're looking out the window, seeing a bright sunny day. You're then running around telling everyone it's raining. You label this mere disagreement. I label it insane fantasy.

You're not seeing history correctly. Iran is not 1930 Germany nor is it 1940 Japan. Not even close. Meanwhile the US is comparable to the USSR in 1980. What does history really tell you about overextending the military and making global enemies?

If you want to teach a kid not to hit other kids you don't do it by threatening to hit them. You are a bully and a wartard.

You're running around claiming I'm a war monger (you get there at some point in nearly every thread), and yet I'm the bully? Right.

Before going further, I do think I should clarify that the P-tard comment was really made in jest and was not designed to insult anyone here specifically (i.e. I was not calling MJ, Jazz or others that).

Now, with regard to the Paul position on foreign policy and why I've challenged MJ so hard about it: I've noticed a peculiar phenomenon with Paul supporters, particularly on foreign policy. Many of them, like MJ, are smart and capable people who want a return to the principles of our Constitution. But on this one issue, they embrace this sort of dogma. I call it that because when pressed hard, they cannot defend their position...it's just the belief of the Paul "organization." It gets to a point where they simply refuse to engage in discussion of the issue any further.

Now, MJ is an otherwise reasonable guy (from what I gather), so he simply says "we disagree" and moves on. But his polite manner doesn't conceal that he has not demonstrated why his somewhat radical ideas on foreign policy and military affairs would be effective and in the best interests of the US and our allies. In fact, history suggests that Paul's position amounts to nothing more than appeasement, which has clearly shown to be disastrous for us in the past.

So, that's why I'm asking: What historical evidence suggests "leaving Iran alone" and withdrawing thousands of troops from the region would be effective? What evidence suggests that opening relations with Iran will result in us getting closer to a peaceful state of affairs? Furthermore, what of my comments on Iran's leaders? Is anyone here NOT concerned about their radicalism (particularly the mullahs and Ayatollah).

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What historical evidence suggests "leaving Iran alone" and withdrawing thousands of troops from the region would be effective? What evidence suggests that opening relations with Iran will result in us getting closer to a peaceful state of affairs? Furthermore, what of my comments on Iran's leaders? Is anyone here NOT concerned about their radicalism (particularly the mullahs and Ayatollah).

Libya for one. In the 1980's everyone thought Ghadafi was going to start a nuclear war. Instead, we traded with them and they became a peaceful nation, until recently, when we felt threatened that they were going to move the monetization of their oil to the European system, so we devised a way to make Ghadafi the boogeyman again.

Pakistan for another. Is the Pakistani government threatening to use their nukes on the US? Wanna guess why? Because we're not threatening to blow them up.

Vietnam is another. After the war, we left them alone. We were so afraid that this militarized communist government was going to kill us all, but in the end... nothing. They are a peaceful nation that is becoming one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union did exactly what we are doing now. Threatened other countries that didn't support them and their ideas, overextended their military, made the world their enemy, lost trade, and suffered for it.

SDW, you live in an alternate reality dictated to you by the pro-military people, some of whom are paranoid, some of whom are xenophobes, some of whom are Christian warriors, some of whom are psychotic, but mostly those who are invested heavily in the military industrial complex who just want to make a buck, and you accept everything they say like a mindless sheep. Look at history with an objective eye.

If you want to teach a kid not to hit other kids you don't do it by threatening to hit them. You are a bully and a wartard.

What do you do with the kid bring him to a psychologist to find out what is bothering them. I an from the old school a good whack won't hurt once in the while and the kid would have more respect in the long run when growing up.

You're not seeing history correctly. Iran is not 1930 Germany nor is it 1940 Japan. Not even close.

Why? Because you say so?

Quote:

Meanwhile the US is comparable to the USSR in 1980.

That is false. Disgustingly so.

Quote:

What does history really tell you about overextending the military and making global enemies?

Yep...there you go. We need to leave everyone alone. We're the problem. In fact, we're always the problem. If we intervene, we're the problem. If we don't, we're the problem. Blame America, the Imperial Power. Got it.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Libya for one. In the 1980's everyone thought Ghadafi was going to start a nuclear war. Instead, we traded with them and they became a peaceful nation, until recently, when we felt threatened that they were going to move the monetization of their oil to the European system, so we devised a way to make Ghadafi the boogeyman again.

You're out of your goddamned mind. We attacked Libya in 1986 for their support of terrorism. Ghadafi didn't give up his WMD program until we pulled Saddam out of a hole.

Quote:

Pakistan for another. Is the Pakistani government threatening to use their nukes on the US? Wanna guess why? Because we're not threatening to blow them up.

Pakistan is not as hostile towards the United States. When 9/11 occurred, what do you think happened? We told them: Get out of our way, or you're next. That's what. Pakistan doesn't want to nuke the U.S. because they know we'll annihilate them. Their leaders are not anywhere near as radical as Iran's.

Quote:

Vietnam is another. After the war, we left them alone. We were so afraid that this militarized communist government was going to kill us all, but in the end... nothing. They are a peaceful nation that is becoming one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Vietnam was never about a conventional threat from that nation. It was about our policy of stopping the spread of Communism. What started out as advisors, then crept all the way up to 500,000 troops. The mission wasn't defined. The military wasn't allowed to win. And of course they are not threatening us...that wasn't the point to begin with.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union did exactly what we are doing now. Threatened other countries that didn't support them and their ideas, overextended their military, made the world their enemy, lost trade, and suffered for it.[

SDW, you live in an alternate reality....

Given the understanding of history you've demonstrated above, I think it's clear you're the one in bizarro world. You clearly don't understand the collapse of the Soviets for example. It wasn't about overextending their military. It was about their economy and the fact it couldn't support an arms race with the U.S. It was about their population and those of their states wanting freedom. It was about the realization of these things that did it for their leadership. The U.S., with all it's flaws, isn't even comparable. We don't invade and conquer nations. We have a totally different governmental and economic system. We have different values. Claiming we are the same shows how delusional and anti-American you actually are.

Quote:

dictated to you by the pro-military people, some of whom are paranoid, some of whom are xenophobes, some of whom are Christian warriors, some of whom are psychotic, but mostly those who are invested heavily in the military industrial complex who just want to make a buck, and you accept everything they say like a mindless sheep. Look at history with an objective eye.

Right. Only enlightened liberals like you can see through the propaganda. Got it.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yep...there you go. We need to leave everyone alone. We're the problem. In fact, we're always the problem. If we intervene, we're the problem. If we don't, we're the problem. Blame America, the Imperial Power. Got it.

I'm afraid tonton is correct. Comparing Iran to Japan or Germany in the 30's or 40's is laughable at best. Or showing your lack of understanding to the times then or now at worst.

However he is correct in comparing the US to the Soviet Union in the 80's. The Soviet Union didn't fall ( as so many hardcore conservatives would have you believe ) because we beat them. It fell because they tried to control too much and spent themselves into a hole with their military while ignoring things at home. A lesson we should pay attention to.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You know, on this issue I really must. Why? Because we're not simply disagreeing about an issue. It's not like I'm arguing for military action in Iran while you argue against. It not just that an argument like that which happens to get heated. No, it's that you are espousing a view of the world that has been proven throughout history to result in disaster if implemented as policy.

Anyone with any understanding of history--of how the world works--knows that your approach (the Paul approach) is dangerous. The examples are numerous. Neville Chamberlin decided to leave Germany alone and agree to positive relations. The result? The Blitz. We decided to leave Japan alone despite growing evidence of its hostility. The result ? Pearl Harbor and entry into WWII. History is replete with such examples of what happens when strong nations withdraw and allow tyrants to have their way. It is further replete with examples of making the mistake of thinking our adversaries always share our values, as if somehow if we treat them differently, they will forget their ways and learn to embrace us. Your approach will do nothing but embolden Iran and ultimately put Israel and the United States at greater risk.

Think about it: You are actually saying that we should simply "leave them alone" and hope for the best. I'm sorry, but no. We can disagree about what to do and how to do it. But when you fundamentally refuse to understand and acknowledge how the world works, I'm going to call you out on it. Not only that, but when I see a group of people blindly and naively embrace these views, I'm going to label them what they are: Paul Tards. You should hear yourselves. You're looking out the window, seeing a bright sunny day. You're then running around telling everyone it's raining. You label this mere disagreement. I label it insane fantasy.

Well someone has been brainwashed by the Cardassians and is seeing too many lights and it's not tonton.

On a side note SDW I just purchased TNG The Next Level HD 3 episode sampler disc on Bluray. In case you haven't heard they did a great job remastering the series and you wouldn't believe how good it looks! I didn't know if you were aware of this but if you like TNG it's worth looking into. There's a trailer for it at the link.

I'm afraid tonton is correct. Comparing Iran to Japan or Germany in the 30's or 40's is laughable at best. Or showing your lack of understanding to the times then or now at worst.

I didn't claim they were the same. I used them as an example of appeasement. Now, tell me why that analogy is invalid.

Quote:

However he is correct in comparing the US to the Soviet Union in the 80's.

Of course.

Quote:

The Soviet Union didn't fall ( as so many hardcore conservatives would have you believe ) because we beat them.

We did beat them. Unquestionably.

Quote:

It fell because they tried to control too much and spent themselves into a hole with their military while ignoring things at home. A lesson we should pay attention to.

Not really. They collapsed because their economy could not support their arms race with us, one that Reagan knew was necessary to convince them they could never outspend us. In addition, their people began to rise up against their totalitarian system and demanded change. To say that we control other nations the way the Soviets did (by invasion and intimidation) is frankly idiotic, not to mention anti-American.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

While Maine is not a binding primary, that and his CPAC win are big for him. Santorum finished third, dealing a blow to him in the Northeast. Gingrich finished last. The biggest disappointment was for Paul, who needed a win and who put many of his resources here.

Next up are AZ and MI, where Romney is expected to win. Following that, it's Super Tuesday. If Romney takes AZ and MI and then has a solid showing on ST, it's going to become difficult for Gingrich and Santorum to remain.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Romney will never ever win the presidency! He is to plastic and is for the rich and no one else.

1. Define "plastic."

2. Demonstrate he is only for the rich. He talks constantly of the middle class. In fact, he opposes a zero capital gains rate, which Gingrich supports. The fact is that you base your comment on nothing other than the fact he has money.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

2. Demonstrate he is only for the rich. He talks constantly of the middle class. In fact, he opposes a zero capital gains rate, which Gingrich supports. The fact is that you base your comment on nothing other than the fact he has money.

He never did anything really good when he was governor of Mass.people were unemployed than and perhaps he did one thing right just thought about it he advocated a good health reform program which now he says he never really wanted. Bet ten thousand dollars to Perry about the immigration issue. Who the hell bets this when people perhaps make that in one year working.He cares less when he says I fire the ones who would not work out for me. What kind of soul does this man have? Plastic no emotion or feelings.A rigid or slightly elastic form which he is.

False. He governed conservatively. He didn't raise taxes. He raised the number of insured people. He balanced the budget. He vetoed many bills from democratic legislature. He created a "rainy day fund" for the state.

Quote:

people were unemployed than

You mean "then." People are always unemployed. Was unemployment worse under Romney?

Quote:

and perhaps he did one thing right just thought about it he advocated a good health reform program which now he says he never really wanted.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. He has never rejected his healthcare plan. He has said that he opposes a federal plan like Obamacare. He has also outlined the difference in his plan and Obamacare.

Quote:

Bet ten thousand dollars to Perry about the immigration issue. [Who the hell bets this when people perhaps make that in one year working.

It was a joke. It didn't play well, but it doesn't mean he's "out of touch."

Quote:

He cares less when he says I fire the ones who would not work out for me.

He was talking about the ability people have to fire their insurance companies. Jesus, at least TRY to understand context.

Quote:

What kind of soul does this man have?

I don't know. Do you?

Quote:

Plastic no emotion or feelings.

Right, so you dodged the question. What does "plastic" mean? And since he's a human being, I highly doubt he has "no emotion or feelings."

Quote:

A rigid or slightly elastic form which he is.

That's it...that's your criticism? He's a little stiff? Well, that certainly disqualifies him to be President, especially considering our current arrogant, aloof, angry President who is waging war on our own nation.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

He is not a socialist. He is not a Muslim. He is not looking to Europe for all the answers (remember, they all took austerity measures and who is clamoring for them here at home? Those European Republicans!). He's not waging a war against religion.

Absurd. All of it.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I didn't claim they were the same. I used them as an example of appeasement. Now, tell me why that analogy is invalid.

Of course.

We did beat them. Unquestionably.

Not really. They collapsed because their economy could not support their arms race with us, one that Reagan knew was necessary to convince them they could never outspend us. In addition, their people began to rise up against their totalitarian system and demanded change. To say that we control other nations the way the Soviets did (by invasion and intimidation) is frankly idiotic, not to mention anti-American.

Quote:

We did beat them. Unquestionably.

Not really. They collapsed because their economy could not support their arms race with us, one that Reagan knew was necessary to convince them they could never outspend us. In addition, their people began to rise up against their totalitarian system and demanded change. To say that we control other nations the way the Soviets did (by invasion and intimidation) is frankly idiotic, not to mention anti-American.

[/QUOTE]

Only in your mind SDW.

And you didn't even comment on my link to the Remastered TNG. It's my way of respecting you as a fellow ST fan even though you do have an outragous take on things.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

2. Demonstrate he is only for the rich. He talks constantly of the middle class. In fact, he opposes a zero capital gains rate, which Gingrich supports. The fact is that you base your comment on nothing other than the fact he has money.

2. Demonstrate he is only for the rich. He talks constantly of the middle class. In fact, he opposes a zero capital gains rate, which Gingrich supports. The fact is that you base your comment on nothing other than the fact he has money.

He is not a socialist. He is not a Muslim. He is not looking to Europe for all the answers (remember, they all took austerity measures and who is clamoring for them here at home? Those European Republicans!). He's not waging a war against religion.

Absurd. All of it.

1. He is promoting policies that have socialist agendas, and many of his mentors and associates have embraced the tenets of socialism.

2. He's not a Muslim, but neither is he a Christian. He's a secular humanist who is afraid to admit it because of the political ramifications. And it's extremely cowardly.

3. Even you can't possibly believe that budgets which ADD to the current deficit and national debt are appropriate.

4. If a President is advocating policies that force religious people to violate their consciences (by elevating the distribution of birth control pills to status of a human right, of all things), he can credibly be accused of waging war against the religious in his country.

Yup...he is, especially with the latest contraception mandate. The government is literally forcing churches and other religious organizations to pay for birth control, which may be against their beliefs. It's war.

Quote:

Absurd. All of it.

Yeah, he's a just a pragmatist.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It further violates my conscience to give any special privileges to idiots who worship iron-age deities, as it legitimizes non-evidence-based thinking, dooming the United States to fall far behind the rest of the industrialized world in cutting edge fields of science and technology.

Oh wait...was it just your conscience the one that matters?

Can we also even say that those making such a huge stink should first grow a conscience in the first place before bitching about having to violate one? Legitimizing the type of bullying that has led to an epidemic of teen suicide does not represent the acts of those with consciences.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Can we also even say that those making such a huge stink should first grow a conscience in the first place before bitching about having to violate one? Legitimizing the type of bullying that has led to an epidemic of teen suicide does not represent the acts of those with consciences.

Oh good...we get to see, first hand, the kind of leftist "moral superiority complex" as is being discussed in the other thread.

The anti-bullying thing has been explained to you, though you refused to recognize that the opponents saw through the government's attempt to co-opt their schools and curriculums.

It violates my conscience to be forced to use money that has the phrase "In God We Trust" on it. Your move.

So you do understand the issue.
Of course, you pretend that having an objectionable motto on a dollar bill is somehow equivalent to forcing Christians to participate in what they believe is murder.

But at least it's a start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

It further violates my conscience to give any special privileges to idiots who worship iron-age deities, as it legitimizes non-evidence-based thinking, dooming the United States to fall far behind the rest of the industrialized world in cutting edge fields of science and technology.

And I would never support a law that forced you to contribute to religious causes that you find so objectionable. Tax-deductible donations allow for religious people to support their causes and non-religious people to support their own. But forcing someone to financially support an organization or practice they detest is wrong. Agreed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Can we also even say that those making such a huge stink should first grow a conscience in the first place before bitching about having to violate one? Legitimizing the type of bullying that has led to an epidemic of teen suicide does not represent the acts of those with consciences.

The legislation you cited was amended to support free speech, and would be struck down in the courts without that provision. You felt free enough to call religious people 'idiots' in your reply above. Mocking and bullying are more tools in your arsenal than anyone else on the board.

By giving religion a special place in society, I am de facto forced to contribute to religious causes. Think of all of the property taxes that homeowners have to make up for because church land is tax free.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

By giving religion a special place in society, I am de facto forced to contribute to religious causes. Think of all of the property taxes that homeowners have to make up for because church land is tax free.

I agree. No more special cases. Let's eliminate property taxes for everyone.